Ha-hah. Seriously, though - it took about 10 minutes for the story to be out before Fox News was able to find a republican representative who was willing to tell them how President Lawnchair is still the son of Satan and this report is worthless. I'm surprised you didn't link to that story, instead.

And of course this story won't in any way stop you from calling for his removal by any available mechanism.

You know as well as I do that:
(a) The fact that HR36 hasn't even been brought to a vote shows that Boehner is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrats.
(b) If there isn't continued pressure for reform, we're just going to see another in the series of Ruling Class Tools in 2016, irrespective of party.

The fact that HR36 hasn't even been brought to a vote shows that Boehner is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrats.

Really? He has voted against nearly everything that President Lawnchair has supported pretty well since first picking up the speaker's gavel. Has it occurred to you that perhaps either he doesn't see it as an urgent matter, or he may even recognize that it would not be fiscally responsible at this time?

Right now a search for "John Boehner" and "HR36" only brings up a bunch of conservative blogs. As best i can tell he hasn't said anything about it in an interview or a speech. You are trying to project

Consider that, with the 1913 freezing of the size of the House, power has drifted from its rightful position with the representatives of the people, over to the Executive. Thus, if you add the total legislation page count to the regulation page count, you get both a fat number and an understanding why all the bemoaning of the "do-nothing Congress" is just specious.
As for

Now you're wandering even further off the subject.

keep in mind that the NYT exists to run interference for the Left, not pursue facts. Thus, this exercise in airbrushing is purely an effo

I thought you wanted less government? Why are you now starting to champion for more representatives in the house? By Tea Party reasoning that would only increase waste.

power has drifted from its rightful position with the representatives of the people, over to the Executive

Really? If the executive has all the power than can you tell me why he didn't get his health care bill? Can you tell me why he hasn't closed Guantanamo? Can you tell me why we are still in Afghanistan? If he had all the power then why has he been unable to fulfill so many of his campaign promises?

If he had all the power then why has he been unable to fulfill so many of his campaign promises?

Because they were lies to win an election, you big dummy! Get it through your thick head that's how things work in this business. How do you expect people (like you) to keep the faith if somebody doesn't put up an illusion of opposition?

I thought you wanted less government? Why are you now starting to champion for more representatives in the house? By Tea Party reasoning that would only increase waste.

You haven't understood the Constitutional, Tea Party reasoning before, and this reply is in character with your non-grasp of the discussion.

power has drifted from its rightful position with the representatives of the people, over to the Executive

Really? If the executive has all the power than can you tell me why he didn't get his health care bill? Can you tell me why he hasn't closed Guantanamo? Can you tell me why we are still in Afghanistan? If he had all the power then why has he been unable to fulfill so many of his campaign promises?

That's all you, Einstein. Obama has shown an ominous capacity for calling audibles on the ACA. One could offer speculation that Guantamamo is where all the worst of these meddling Tea Party kids will end up. Afghanistan? Well, there was a ton of money to be "made" by having GM sell MaxPros to the military. Down the road, one could speculate that it becomes a place to wh

The only thing I don't understand in this regard is why the tea party call themselves the nation's greatest experts on the constitution when they care only about certain parts and are more than happy to completely ignore others. You can't accurately call yourself an expert on the entire document when you see some parts of it irrelevant in your decision making process; you are being at best disingenuous when you do so.

Some might even call you liars for such an action.

One could offer speculation that Guantamamo is where all the worst of these meddling Tea Party kids will end up

No matter what you do, there is always some prevaricating jackwagon standing by to drop the "l" word.
I can only relate where I have been, what I have seen, heard, and done. I leave it to the diabolical "some" to interact with what I have said, twist it, add and subtract from it, squeeze out something substantially different, and claim it's what I've said.
I relax, knowing that "some" can engage in all manner of base calumny here under the sun, knowing that, if they repent not, it shan't go well for them in

... and just like that, you jettison an entire discussion because I used one word that hurt your feelings - even though I did not myself direct it at you specifically. Apparently it is acceptable to question your honesty and integrity but when I dare to suggest that someone might call you a liar, your feelings are hurt so deeply that you focus on that one word and ignore everything else that I said. In so doing you pretty clearly demonstrate why we haven't been able to have a reasonable conversation betwe

I thought you wanted less government? Why are you now starting to champion for more representatives in the house? By Tea Party reasoning that would only increase waste.

You haven't understood the Constitutional, Tea Party reasoning before

By the way, that is a massive cop-out right there. I pointed out the problem with your argument and you responded with disconnected drivel capped off with an insult. There is no way to increase the size of the house without increasing the cost of government. This is just another partisan act on your behalf; if the GOP held the upper chamber and not the lower you would be making the opposite argument.

There is no way to increase the size of the house without increasing the cost of government.

"No way"? None? If you wanted to go after restoring anything akin to the proper Constitutional ratio (and I'm merely pointing out a problem here, not specifying a remedy) then you'd probably set about whacking some of the least useful executive areas (Dept. of Education, Dept. of Energy, EPA and so forth) and let the people lurking in those departments become Congressional staffers.
This would have the effect of making the House of Representatives the first among equals again, as it should be. Actual, elect

There is no way to increase the size of the house without increasing the cost of government.

"No way"? None?

Correct. At least, none that you have described so far.

If you wanted to go after restoring anything akin to the proper Constitutional ratio

Could you please be so kind as to demonstrate how the current house setup is unconstitutional?

whacking some of the least useful executive areas (Dept. of Education, Dept. of Energy, EPA and so forth)

We know you are opposed to seeing people get an education who cannot afford a private education (as these people are likely to become well learned enough to vote against the tea party), and that you see things such as environmental conservation as needless. However killing off those departments wouldn't actually make the change you claim.

let the people lurking in those departments become Congressional staffers.

Could you please be so kind as to demonstrate how the current house setup is unconstitutional?

Why are you accusing our Congress of being unconstitutional? I think this wholly scurrilous of you, sir. If you want to understand how the Progressives have sodomized our Constitutional order, see this link [thirty-thousand.org]. But DON'T call in unconstitutional.